China is the #2 economy and has a nuclear arsenal. Japan is the #3 economy and has no offensive military power as per post-war demilitarization. The US is the #1 economy, also has a nuclear arsenal, is a major trading partner of both nations and has an MDP with Japan to compensate for their demilitarization. The Philippines face the same issue as Japan in regards to China and also has an MDP with the US as well as an organized military.

Throw in all the alliances and if the shooting starts a few uninhabited rocks could conceivably start WW3... Hopefully the Chinese realize they're outgunned and back down before anyone gets killed because this won't remain a regional war if the powder keg blows.

China would not risk an all-out war with the US by attacking the disputed islands administered by Japan, which would trigger Article 5 of the mutual defence treaty between the US and Japan and there are more than 40,000 US servicemen stationed in Japan. The Chinese media is fanning the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment for domestic consumption because as long as public anger is directed against Japan, China can keep the Arab Spring at bay. The Japanese government is also playing politics over the issue ahead of the general election.

China would not risk an all-out war with the US by attacking the disputed islands administered by Japan, which would trigger Article 5 of the mutual defence treaty between the US and Japan and there are more than 40,000 US servicemen stationed in Japan. The Chinese media is fanning the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment for domestic consumption because as long as public anger is directed against Japan, China can keep the Arab Spring at bay. The Japanese government is also playing politics over the issue ahead of the general election.

From what I understand, this was actually an (apparently failed) attempt at damage control. An ultra-nationalist governor was raising money to buy the islands and to keep an open imperialist from seizing the islands, the central gov't preempted the sale to keep a moderate face on the island's governance.

Alas the Chinese seem to still see it as an imperialist act and now there are people rioting in 100 different cities. 1 Chinese is already dead and another has been beaten to within an inch of his life for the crime of driving a Toyota. It's crazy and it seems the Chinese gov't is actually supporting the rioting which heightens the risk of war.

I really don't see this staying a regional war if this goes hot. SK, Philippines, Vietnam and even Russia would have much to gain diplomatically, economically and territorially by jumping into a war if China starts anything.

Even MAD is a non-issue if they use nukes in any war that might happen. They can't hit Western Russia or anything east of the Cascades in the US while both the Russians and Americans have a global reach. China would get glassed, the RF and US would just build memorials and continue on like nothing happened (for the most part). Hopefully China realizes doesn't have the weapons or manpower and backs down before they do something stupid.

Capitalism is about amassing wealth into the hands of a few. All money trickles up in capitalism creating a ruling merchant class. Better then feudalism but with similar results for the working class. Freedom and private property (with no gender/class restrictions) undermine this which is why capitalist societies ether fall to socialism or fascism or evolve into 3rd way economies. The Chinese and Russians, having tried to go to socialism from feudalism initially, are young capitalist societies with all it's dirty side effects. What we're seeing in China is a move to democratization and 3rd way economics vs the capitalist status quo trying to keep everyone down.

Capitalism is too broad a word to argue it like you two are. There are many types of capitalist systems. There are groups that argue free market capitalism is the only capitalism, but even there there is no definite definition.

On the point of China, the are quite capitalist as is. They lack a lot of political freedom, but economically they have generally been increasing freedoms for over 2 decades now.

And on wealth accumulation, movement of money to the hands of a few is also not inherent to capitalism. Inequality relative to more redistributive systems might be but if you have a population where the poor are worth $xx and the highest of the rich worth $xxxxxx vs. a population where everyone is worth $x, which one is better?

This is what people always say when they don't want to earn their wealth.

A capitalist republic such as the usa the fault is on the individual for not having wealth.

People come here with nothing, no english and no money and seem to attain wealth. Not easliy but its possable.

The people who are not wealthy in this nation simply don't want to be. Having all the opertunities but unwilling to struggle.

I really don't think they understand what life is. It is a perpetual struggle that you will absolutly fail as sure as working class will pay taxes.

I was part of that crowd at one point. I attended college, jumped through the academic hoops had my goal all planned out, but when it came to going deep into debt to have a marginally successful career I re evaluated that choice. I dropped out of college and currently make about twice what I would have made with my masters dagree. Between finding my calling and abandoning the tradition of debt and servatude I felt cheated. Those rediculous high school teachers told me that college was the golden key to a brighter future. If only I had known that I was making more money in my senior year than ninty percent of my teachers I would have never bought it.

So I understand davids frustration but it comes from a place of betrayal. all he needs is the will to struggle then he would see that capitalism isthe best possable economy.

Sadly you can only gain that knowledge through experience, that is why it is called wisdom. He will copletely ignore every bit of wisdom in my post for satisfaction of being right. Maybe quote a scholor or another similar figure to prove how right he is. But i dont need all of that business, I know I am correct in my assesment. The proof is in the juice.

There is not going to be any war there,well not for a long while but I expect one in the future as pay back fro the Japanese invasion of China back in the 1930's. The Chinese have not forgotten that. These protests pop their head up from time to time and the Chinese government are happy to exploit them as are the Japanese depending what the domestic situation is in either country at the time.

And on wealth accumulation, movement of money to the hands of a few is also not inherent to capitalism. Inequality relative to more redistributive systems might be but if you have a population where the poor are worth $xx and the highest of the rich worth $xxxxxx vs. a population where everyone is worth $x, which one is better?

Surely the ideal is that everyone is worth roughly around $xxx-$xxxx with any individual not worth less than $xx? But such an ideal society would have to ensure that all needs are catered to, it doesn't just come down to money. Inequality is actually very economically damaging, and ultimately unsustainable.

China would not risk an all-out war with the US by attacking the disputed islands administered by Japan, which would trigger Article 5 of the mutual defence treaty between the US and Japan and there are more than 40,000 US servicemen stationed in Japan. The Chinese media is fanning the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment for domestic consumption because as long as public anger is directed against Japan, China can keep the Arab Spring at bay. The Japanese government is also playing politics over the issue ahead of the general election.

Political Fray

Founded in 2009, the Political Fray was created to offer a higher level of discourse for a political forum by valuing intellectual discussion and debate. Our community is open to all people from around the world for the discussion of politics, economics, society, and more.